ArticleFrontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare2026
Exploring feasible ways of person-reported outcome measurement in routine type 1 diabetes care: a protocol for the Diabeter-PROM study.
Article in Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychosocial person-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) may assist monitoring, screening and support in routine care for people with type 1 diabetes (PWDs). However, recommended PROM sets are either too limited in covered domains, too time-consuming, or too general to fit type 1 diabetes (T1D) clinical practice. We propose an alternative approach to PROM assessment in routine daily T1D care (Diabeter-PROM study) that is maximally relevant and minimally burdensome for PWDs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). We identify single index questions indicating the need for more in-depth assessment, thereby aligning total assessment length more closely with individual needs. Methods: Scientist-practitioners identified twelve key psychosocial domains based on literature review, clinical experience and discussion with PWDs: general quality of life, mood, anxiety, diabetes-specific worries, impact, disturbed eating behaviour, self-efficacy, self-esteem, social support/interaction, resiliency, stigma and satisfaction with care. These domains will be divided over three observational mixed-method sub-studies. Through purposive-sampled interviews and panels, HCPs and PWDs (> 10 per sub study) co-determine candidate index questions for each domain. These are then included in three separate cross sectional questionnaire batteries with existing PROMs. Each will be completed by ≥200 PWDs from our clinic. Per domain, the optimal index question and most informative in-depth item set are determined using statistics (test characteristics, item response) and clinical interpretation. Discussion: We describe the exploration of an alternative way of PROM assessments, adapted to use in regular T1D care. After determining the most suitable index questions, we will apply this system in our daily diabetes practice, taking end-user needs into account and facilitating sustainable PROM implementation in routine care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.